West Coast Groundfish Observer Program Manual, Part2 - NOAA

APPENDIX P
sea as a result of this rule. Therefore, there is at least a theoretical possibility that 20 percent of the
affected small entities could experience a significant economic impact.
In addition to the preferred alternative, which is the alternative that is implemented by this rule,
NMFS considered several other alternatives. One of them would have been to take no action. Under
this approach, vessels that carry observers would be required to comply with the same safety
standards that would be applicable under the preferred alternative, but there would be no guidance to
interested parties as to how to conduct a pre-trip safety check nor would there be any means by
which an observer could quickly ascertain whether the vessel was in compliance with applicable
USCG regulations. If the agency were to adopt the no-action alternative, the Congressional mandate
in the Magnuson-Stevens Act would not be effected. In addition, there would be continued risk of
unsafe conditions on board vessels to which observers were assigned.
Another alternative would have prescribed new national standards for a wide range of safety
and accommodations issues. Basic standards for determining a vessel’s safety and adequacy would
be based on USCG safety requirements and NMFS regional observer requirements as is the case
in the first alternative. In addition to those basic USCG standards, this alternative would result in
new regulations addressing a wide range of accommodation issues, such as quality of food, which,
if not met, would authorize an observer not to board a fishing vessel. The observer would be
authorized to make the pre-trip safety check to determine whether or not he/ she would board
the vessel. In mandatory observer programs, a fishing vessel would not be permitted to fish legally
without an observer. This alternative is not the preferred alternative because of the degree to
which an observer would be authorized to make subjective, qualitative determinations.
Furthermore, because of the variability of working conditions on fishing vessels, some vessels
could not reasonably or economically meet the expectations of all observers. Therefore, the risk
of this alternative resulting in delays of fishing trips is greater than that of the preferred alternative.
The last alternative that NMFS considered would have prescribed basic standards for
determining safety and adequacy as described in the preferred alternative, but either the National
Marine Fisheries Service or an authorized observer contractor would have been authorized to make
the pretrip safety check to determine whether or not the observer would board the vessel. In
mandatory observer programs, a fishing vessel would not be permitted to fish legally without an
observer. This alternative would have used the same evaluation criteria (USCG dockside safety
examination, pre-trip safety check, presence of a current Commercial Fishing Vessel Safety Decal,
etc.) as the preferred alternative but would give NMFS and/or an authorized observer contractor the
authority to decide whether a vessel is safe and adequate. The rationale for this approach is that it
would avoid putting the observer into a situation where vessel owner, operator, and crew might exert
pressure to coerce the observer to declare the vessel safe despite conditions that the observer
believed to be unsafe. It would also avoid the potential for a ‘‘vindictive’’ observer to abuse
discretion in making safety checks. The benefit of having NMFS or an authorized observer
contractor make the safety and adequacy decision is that it would avoid putting the additional
pressure on an observer of potentially having to tell a captain and crew with whom he/she would be
spending time at sea that a fishing trip would be delayed. However, this alternative would also have
the potential to delay a fishing voyage pending safety resolution. It is just as possible that a NMFS
employee or observer contractor would discover safety issues in need of attention as an observer
would. In addition, under this alternative, an observer who believes a vessel to be unsafe may be
instructed to board because NMFS or the observer contractor believes the vessel to be safe. There
would also be costs to NMFS and/ or the observer contractor in the form of having a representative
on site each time an observer boarded a vessel. NMFS and/or the observer contractor would also
experience the cost of training employees to make the pre-trip safety check. This alternative is not
preferred because it would put a third party in a position of judging a vessel’s safety and perhaps of
forcing an observer aboard an unsafe vessel.
1/30/2004 A- 47